From national to regional grid planning
Differences and harmonisation opportunities in the operations of the Nordic TSOs
Fortum Energy Review, November 2019 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Foreword
From national to Nordic transmission system operations
ortum is a true Nordic elec- transmission infrastructure and system still many harmonisation opportunities tricity company with a pres- operations are often optimised differently for Nordic grid operations and planning. ence in all Nordic and Baltic in the various Nordic countries. Fortum believes that farsighted and trans- price areas through electricity This report, written by Pöyry on parent grid planning decreases the uncer- production and/or consump- Fortum’s assignment, reveals that the tainty of investment decisions for market Ftion. We are a strong advocator for a Nordic Transmission System Operators participants as well as the overall cost of fully harmonised Nordic regional elec- (TSOs) have different historical and oper- the energy transition and electrification of tricity market, as we – through our geo- ational perspectives. Grid investments our industries. All Nordic countries aim to graphical presence – are able to witness are primarily driven by national interests become climate neutral during the 2030s. the Nordic benefit (“Nordisk Nytta”) that and prioritisation. Even in joint projects This means thousands of megawatts of the common electricity market delivers where Nordic cost-benefit methodology renewable energy investments requiring every day to our societies. The Nordic is used, national interests often take new grid infrastructure and better sys- electricity market enables the imple- precedence over common benefits. There tem operation so as to not endanger the mentation of the Nordic countries’ high are also clear differences in the approach energy transition. ambitions for climate neutrality, energy to the existence and management of Fortum encourages the Nordic TSOs transition and electrification of indus- congestion in the transmission grid. In and Nordic policy makers to accelerate tries at a lower cost than if each country addition, present balancing tools are the harmonisation of operation and plan- were to optimise the electricity market not harmonised across the Nordic TSOs. ning and to increase the overall co-oper- from a national perspective. Finally, the transparency of information ation inside the region, in order to ensure Fortum favours an efficient, compet- about the market is not disclosed in a that the underlying physical infrastruc- itive and market-driven regional power systematic way across the TSOs. ture facilitates efficient energy markets market where producers and consumers Many of the differences can be and a cost-effective energy transition. have an equal level playing field relat- explained by the fact that the legislative Fortum thanks Pöyry for writing this ing to market operations and market framework for regulating TSO obligations report and all the people interviewed for access. Fortum’s own experience and this is not the same across the Nordic coun- taking the time to share their thoughts. report show, however, that this objec- tries, and hence there is room for national Fortum hopes this report will provide a tive is currently not fully materialised. perspectives and interpretations. good basis for continued discussion on A level playing field is not always equal Fortum's assessment, based on the enhancing the Nordic Electricity Market throughout the regional market because findings of the report, is that there are and Power System. Fortum Energy Review 2019
Key Fortum messages based on the findings of the Pöyry report:
The internal electricity market with well-developed grid infrastructure, both internal and cross-border, is a key enabler for reaching climate neutrality by 2050 through energy transition and electrification. How the co-operation of transmission system operators evolves in the coming years will be of crucial importance if we are to reach these objectives as cost-efficiently as possible.
Fortum believes that the regional Nordic electricity market is a key enabler for the Nordic countries’ high ambitions for climate neutrality, energy transition and electrification at a lower cost than if each country were to optimise the electricity market from a national perspective. In order to realise the full potential of the Nordic electricity market, the Nordic countries should proceed from developing common market rules to harmonising the regional system operation and planning.
Our messages are primarily targeted to the Nordic policy makers, regulators, TSOs and other stakeholders, but they are equally applicable at the EU level.
• Energy transition and electrification will require • A separate regional financing hub should be significant strengthening of the regional grid trans- established where congestion revenues would be mission system. collected. These pooled resources should be used • Farsighted and transparent grid planning to remove bottlenecks from the most congested decreases the uncertainty of investment decisions areas. for market participants and the overall cost of the • There should be a clear target to decrease the num- energy transition and electrification. ber of price areas in the Nordic power market. • Enhancing and harmonising the TSO operations • Nordic balancing markets should be harmonised and regulations at the regional level requires strong and the number of balancing market places political backing. reduced. Market access to balancing market places • A co-ordinated regional approach in grid planning should be equal and technology neutral. should be based on top-down optimisation of grid • Market information should be disclosed in a sys- development. The regional plan should be more tematic and transparent way across the Nordic than a compilation of national plans. TSOs. • The socio-economic benefits of grid investments • The Nordic Regional Security Co-ordination (RSC) should be assessed from the regional perspective should be strengthened to be the real co-ordination rather than from the national perspective. centre for Nordic system operations and planning. • Congestion revenues should be invested in grid development to reduce existing bottlenecks.
3 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Fortum Energy Review November 2019
Publisher: Fortum, Public Affairs: More of Fortum’s positions on Fortum Corporation Merja Paavola topical energy issues: Keilalahdentie 2–4 tel. +358 50 396 1161 www.fortum.com > About us > 02150 Espoo, Finland Our company > Public affairs tel. +358 10 4511
Authors: Fortum, Trading and Asset Optimisation: Stephen Woodhouse, Pöyry Simon-Erik Ollus Juha P. Leinonen, Pöyry tel. +358 40 179 0166
4 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Contents
INTRODUCTION Background ...... 6 Objectives ...... 6
PHYSICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT...... 8
TRANSMISSION GRID INVESTMENT Grid development and investment...... 14 Cost and benefit sharing in grid investment. . . . .16 Cost benefit analysis for grid investments. . . . . 17 Case study: Danish-German border and Skagerrak 4. . 18
SYSTEM OPERATION Congestion management...... 20 Contingency management...... 21 Balancing model and tools...... 23
TRANSPARENCY...... 24
POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE Regulation and governance model...... 26 Nordic cooperation and political cohesion. . . . . 27 Legislative framework...... 29
About this publication: This report (pages 6-31) has been prepared by Pöyry Management ...... Consulting for Fortum Oyj. It is an independent SUMMARY 30 report by Pöyry and all the findings and views expressed in the report reflect the views of Pöyry as they were interpretable based on public information and interviews. ANNEX A...... 31
While Pöyry considers that the information and opinions given in this publication are sound, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of it. This publication is partly based on information that is not within Pöyry’s control. Therefore, Pöyry does not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication. Pöyry expressly disclaims any and all liability arising out of or relating to the use of this publication.
5 Fortum Energy Review 2019
1 Introduction
Background cross-border investments have given and their behaviours and also to iden- ordic TSOs have a pivotal mutual benefit; but increasingly the ben- tify areas where TSOs could align more role in the electricity efits of additional investments are asym- closely to deliver Nordic (and European) system, with responsibil- metric; and within the range of plausible benefits. More detailed objectives of the ity for system operation future outcomes one of the countries study are as follows: and transmission grid may actually face welfare losses arising • to bring up the main differences in Ndevelopment as well as key aspects from the investment. Nordic TSO operations, rules and of design of the electricity markets. Investments are considered indi- practices as-is; Despite a strong history of collabora- vidually and despite the TSOs having • to understand and explain differ- tion, the organisational arrangements, considerable freedom to share costs and ences and the underlying drivers governance structures and ways of congestion revenues in innovative ways, behind the differences; performing statutory tasks differ signif- there tends to be limited support from • to understand how the differences icantly between the Nordic TSOs. These the country with less to gain (and more may be explained by TSOs’ national differences are due to the historical to lose). or regional interests; and background and physical reality of the Nordic TSOs are the key enablers • to make high level recommendations transmission systems as well as differ- of Nordic electricity market harmoni- for opportunities to witness and ences in national legislation and energy sation. Ultimately, their operations are obtain Nordic socio-economic bene- policy. Such differences may inhibit governed by the set of European and fit (“Nordisk Nytta”). further steps to harmonise and integrate national legislation, statutory license Our purpose is to support construc- the Nordic and wider European elec- obligations, and a number of regulatory tive debate around the activities of the tricity market, despite declared political priorities and incentives – topped with Nordic TSOs and how the differences intentions. the national political expectations. are reflected in the Nordic cooperation. Harmonisation and integration of This may lead to the situation where While differences are discussed, we national electricity markets as a single transmission infrastructure and system do not assess or compare the ways in Nordic regional market has so far been operations are optimised differently which Nordic TSOs are executing their voluntary, and to date each step has in the various Nordic countries. This statutory tasks. Neither do we sug- provided benefits for each country fairly report aims to shine a light on the dif- gest solutions for the issues where the evenly. After the simple ‘win-win’ joint ferences between Nordic TSOs, their differences may lead to unoptimised initiatives of the early days of coop- underlying drivers of behaviour, and solutions. eration, the benefits of further steps to highlight the issue that the Nordic For the market parties, the study is towards harmonisation may not be energy system would benefit from a intended to increase the understanding shared as equally. However, the eco- more harmonised regional perspective. of the perspectives of Nordic TSOs. nomic benefits from further harmonisa- Sometimes there is criticism on the tion and co-operation are still large and Objectives TSO operations and the pace of Nordic will increase further as the electricity The purpose of the study is to under- harmonisation from the market parties, systems continue to transform in sup- stand the behaviour, and underlying even though a lot of good development port of decarbonised economies. obligations and incentives of the Nor- has happened over the years. We have One key area is grid development and dic TSOs; specifically how and in what observed this perception in our own mul- investment, which is frequently driven circumstances these support Nordic ti-client work on Nordic market design. by national legislation and politics, regional (or wider European) interests, In order to understand the whole, the when a regional approach could yield or give precedence to national require- reader has to understand the national better outcomes. The Nordic grid devel- ments. Our aim is to support an open and Nordic context. opment plans are compilations based discussion on the differences in Nordic For the TSOs, the study provides on national plans and consensus, not TSOs’ operations in a way that makes material to discuss opportunities for (solely) on integrated analysis and com- it possible to help stakeholders better harmonisation that result in Nordic mon socio-economic trade-off. Previous understand the situation of the TSOs socio-economic benefit. The report also
6 Fortum Energy Review 2019
brings up the views of key stakeholders statements and presentations of TSOs, on the further cooperation and harmoni- network development plans, and stud- sation of Nordic TSOs operations. ies, reports and statistics by ENTSO-E Public authorities such as ministries and other international and national and national regulatory authorities organisation and regulatory authori- (NRAs) can benefit from the study by ties. Interviews were conducted with understanding better their vital role in TSOs, ministries and NRAs in each of promoting cooperation and harmonisa- the Nordic countries and also with the tion in the Nordic electricity market. Nordic Regional Security Coordinator The study is based on public infor- during June and July 2019. A list of inter- mation and a series of interviews. Public viewees can be found in Annex A, and information has been collected from we are very grateful for their supportive many data sources such as financial cooperation.
7 Fortum Energy Review 2019
2 Physical and political context
he Nordic electricity market consists of four integrated power markets: Nordic TSOs have different historical and operational Norway, Denmark, Sweden perspectives which influences their behaviour and approach and Finland. Together they Tshare a population of around 26.5 mil- • There are significant differences in the physical structure lion. Due to its northern location, wide- across the Nordic markets spread use of electric heating and the • The challenges faced by the TSOs in operating the system presence of power-intensive industry, now and in the future are different across the Nordics due the Nordic electricity market presents to differences in generation structure, available resources relatively high level of consumption and the gap to meet decarbonisation targets by European standards, relative to its population.
National energy policies The Nordic countries pursue a broadly production is almost emission-free nuclear plant at Olkiluoto in 2020 will similar energy policy agenda, but can in contrast to other Nordic countries contribute to improve significantly the differ in terms of policy prioritisa- which are investing heavily in decar- Finnish security of supply. tion due to factors such as resource bonisation of their electricity systems. The Danish power market is quite endowments, consumption patterns The large water reservoirs, located different from the other Nordic mar- and political priorities. Over the last mostly in south-western Norway, kets. It is a smaller market, dominated ten years, the following dimensions are instrumental in providing system by wind power and CHP rather than have prevailed: flexibility. Norway is also blessed with hydro or nuclear power. In 2018, wind • Security of supply – Power supply good wind resources, especially in the served more than 40% of total electric- and demand should continuously be north but public opinion on wind power ity consumption. in equilibrium. development is not very positive2 at Table 1 summarises the key char- • Economic efficiency and value cre- the moment. acteristics of the Nordic electricity ation – Society’s overall benefits of The Swedish generation mix is markets. power generation should outweigh dominated by nuclear (42%) and hydro costs. (39%) power. Wind generation is grow- Nordic transmission system • Sustainability – Power generation ing fast and its capacity exceeds that operators should be as environmentally sus- of thermal generation. Vattenfall has Until 1986, Statnett’s operations tainable as possible. decided to close two nuclear reactors were part of the Norwegian Water by 2020, which will impact on the Resources and Energy Directorate National energy policies include power generation mix and increase the (Norges vassdrags- og energidirek- also national interests and priorities share of intermittent wind production. torat, referred to as NVE hereafter). In such as low energy prices for consum- Finland and Denmark are net 1986, NVE was split into two parts: the ers and industries, national competi- importers of electricity. The Finnish Statskraftverkene and a directorate tiveness, and maximising the value of electricity supply consists mainly of (NVE). In 1992, Statskraftverkene was common energy markets. nuclear, CHP, hydropower and a high further split into one entity responsible share of imports. Finland has benefited for the grid and the other for power Power generation mix from cheap hydropower in Sweden and production. The former thus came The Norwegian power mix is domi- Norway. Thermal plant profitability to be known as Statnett, the Norwe- nated by hydro power. Of the 35GW has been challenging, with low Nordic gian TSO and the latter is known as of total installed capacity, hydro electricity prices leading to early plant Statkraft. As of end of 2018, Statnett accounts for 32GW1. The electricity closures. The commissioning of a new is a state enterprise, fully owned by
8 Fortum Energy Review 2019
the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy Table 1 – Key characteristics of the Nordic (OED). The OED has a double role with electricity market, 2018 Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Statnett; that of an owner and a regu- Demand, TWh 136 34 141 87 lator. Statnett’s revenues are regulated by NVE, which is a directorate under Total generation, TWh 146 29 158 68 the OED. Hydro 95% 0% 39% 19% Energinet was founded in 2005 Nuclear 0% 0% 42% 32% through a merger of power grid oper- Thermal 2% 47% 10% 39% ators Eltra, Elkraft System and Elkraft Transmission, as well as natural gas Wind and solar 2% 51% 9% 9% TSO Gastra. It belongs under the Share of renewables 97% 51% 56% 47% Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy Net export, TWh 9.9 -5.2 17.3 -19.9 and Building, and is fully owned by the Export 18 10.4 31.6 3.4 Government of Denmark. Energinet owns the Danish central grid and all Import 8.1 15.6 14.2 23.4 significant interconnectors with bor- Installed capacity, GW 35.0 16.1 39.9 17.4 der countries. Danish law requires Peak demand, GW 24.1 6.1 27.4 14.2 Energinet to keep its electricity and Bidding zones 5 2 4 1 gas related operations financially 43.05- 44.05, 44.23- separate. Day-ahead price, EUR/MWh 44.08 46.20 46.36 46.80 Svenska Kraftnät (SvK) was cre- ated in 1992, ahead of market liber- Source: Nord Pool, ENTSO-E alisation in 1996. It was split from the Government owned joint gen- eration-transmission-supply entity Vattenfall that existed at the time. SvK operates as a state-owned enterprise Table 2 – Key financial figures of Nordic TSOs, that is legally part of the Swedish 2018 (MEUR1) Statnett Energinet2 SvK Fingrid Government (a so called “affärsverk”). Revenues 961.9 462.4 1138.7 863.6 That is, this differs from a Government owned, but separate legal entity. Operating profit 328.4 50.3 -9.1 241.6 It receives written instructions Balance sheet 7398 4413 2614 21105 (‘Regulatory Letter’) from the Swedish Dividend 34.3 0 12.9 171.4 Parliament each year. Rating A2/A+ AA- AAA4 AA-/A+ Fingrid Oyj is a company respon- 3 sible for electricity transmission in Personnel 1461 470 616 380 the high-voltage transmission sys- tem in Finland. It was established in 1) Average exchange rate 2018, 1 EUR = 9.5 NOK, 7.45 DKK, 10.26 SEK 2) Figures for electricity TSO (TSO-EL), excludes gas TSO (TSO-GAS) and other subsidiaries of the group 1996 when the Finnish state owned 3) Estimated from the total personnel in the group (1264) and the division of personnel costs (TSO-EL power company Imatran Voima Oy MDKK 241 and group MDKK 642) 4) State rating (currently: Fortum), industry power 5) Consolidated balance sheet company Pohjolan Voima Oy (PVO) and the Finnish state agreed to con- Source: Statnett, Energinet, SvK, Fingrid centrate all transmission network infrastructure and operations into one company. Fingrid is currently a public
1 Statistics Norway and NVE 2 https://e24.no/energi/vindkraft/turistforeningen-mener-vindkraft-rammer-truer-verdifull-natur/24593877
9 Fortum Energy Review 2019
10 Fortum Plastics Review 2019 Fortum Energy Review 2019
limited liability company in which the has developed by connecting local or Denmark has two separated trans- Finnish state has a controlling stake. regional radial grids built around the mission systems, of which the eastern The majority of the shares (53.14%) largest cities and production units one is synchronous with the Nordic are owned by the Finnish state and over the course of time. Originally, region and the western one with the National Emergency Supply most of these grids were self-suffi- the synchronous grid of Continental Agency. The rest of the shares are cient, and in spite of strong devel- Europe. held by Finnish financial and insurance opment efforts, there is still a lack of The Nordic day-ahead/intra- institutions. internal north-south capacity crossing day market consists of 15 bidding Table 2 shows key financial infor- the 62nd and 67th parallels. A major zones including the Baltic countries. mation of the Nordic TSOs. effort is being made to strengthen the Historically, Norway has had a policy internal capacity linked to the cables of market splitting since before the Nordic transmission system to the Continent (incl. Jutland) and creation of the Nordic market in the Nordic transmission grids are Great Britain. 1990s, and has a policy of dynamically physically very different, as can be seen in Figure 1. The Swedish main grid is characterised by long north- Figure 1 – Nordic transmission system map south transmission lines. Most hydro capacity is located in northern areas, 10°W 5°W 0° 5°E 10°E 15°E 20°E 25°E 30°E 35°E 70°N 40°E
25°W 20°W Source of information
ENTSO-E members and European Network of Transmission observer members System Operators for Electricity
Russia System Operators of the UPS of Russia 15°W and nuclear capacity in the mid- and MJO 25°W Ukraine UKRENERGO National Power Company Varangerbotn 70°N Hammerfest 10°W Adamselv
65°N GED Kirkenes
HNJ southern parts of the country. There Bakki Borisoglebskaya HPP-8 LAV LV2 Utsjoki Serebryanskaya HPP-15 GLE VAR 150 BLA Nikel THR Skogfoss RAN Interconnected network Vykhodnoy HRU KRA Alta Kvænangsbotn 40°E are very few east-west transmission VAT of Northern Europe Kaitakoski HPP-4 Guolasjakka BRE GEH KOR Olenegorsk FI2 FIT RAU OLD EYV NES ICELAND Skibotn HF1 2019 Ivalo Balsfjord HAM SOG REY SVA Monchegorsk KOL SUL HRA FLJ HRY Bardufoss ESK Kol'skaya NPP lines. The Swedish main network HEL SU2 HR1 SI3 As of 31/12/2018 HR1 SI2 VF1 VAF Straumsmo BUR SIG Titan 65°N Innset TEH
Narvik HOL PRE Tornehamn is old, with investment needed to Sildvik Vajukoski Kuolajärvi Skomen Ofoten Knyazhegubskaya 20°W 15°W Isoniemi Kokkosniva
Ritsem replace assets that are reaching the Vietas Kilometers Kobbelv 0 50 100 200 300 400 Loukhi Siso
Salten Seitakorva A Porjus Scale: 1 : 3 000 000 SE Vanttauskoski N Lomi Seitevare Harsprånget IA 65°N end of their lifetime, provide capacity WEG Valajaskoski NOR Messaure Pirttikoski Ligga Petäjäskoski Akkats Svartisen Ossauskoski Lines and cables Power plants Letsi Kostomuksha Putkinskaya HPP-9 Symbols for under operation and Different voltages (colours) Taivalkoski 750 kV transmission line under construction Krivoporozhskaya HPP-14 Porsi Keminmaa 500 kV transmission line Biogas Djuptjärn 380-400 kV transmission line Biomass Sellee for renewable energy production and Brown coal/Lignite Rana Kemi 300-330 kV transmission line 220-275 kV transmission line Coal derived gas Isohaara Simo Laxede Kalix 110-150 kV transmission line Fossil fuel Nedre Røssåga Veitsiluoto DC-line Fossil gas Svartbyn Myllykangas Fossil oil Different lines (for all voltages) under operation Fossil peat Raasakka 1 circuit Geothermal Isokangas Double circuit Hard coal 65°N Double circuit with 1 circuit mounted Hydro marine Kivivaara Peuravaara Ondskaya HPP-4 >= 3 circuits Hydro mixed pump storage Bastusel Pikkarala Pyhänselkä minimise bottlenecks. Hydro pure pump storage Ajaure Trofors Gejmån Råbäcken Toppila Pälli Additional information for all lines and voltages Hydro pure storage Gardikfors Seitenoikea Segezha Gallejaur Utanen Under construction (dashed) Hydro run of river and pondage Juktan Nuottasaari Underground (for onshore lines and cables) Mixed fuels Blaiken Pyhäkoski 220 Currently used voltage Nuclear Nuojua Jylhämä (220) Temporary voltage Oil shale Kolsvik Vagfors 15 Numeral as explained below Other fossil fuel Sarvankangas Other (not listed) Stalon Grundfors Other elements Solar Högnäs Connection line Solar photovoltaic Namskogan Vuolijoki RUSSIA Tohkoja A distinctive feature of the Finnish Substation Solar thermic Linnvasselv Kvistforsen Medvezh'egorsk Phase shifter Waste Storbäck Jylkkä Converter station Waste (non renewable) Blåsjön Mustilankangas Converter station back-to-back Waste (renewable) Tunnsjødal Haapavesi Wind farm Junsterforsen Tuggen Uusnivala Substation(s) & Power plant(s) Korsselbränna The map is a comprehensive illustration of the interconnected networks, it shows existing elements and those under construc- Gäddede tion: power plants, converters, substations and high-voltage cables/lines with towers designed for voltages of a) 220 kV and Stenkullafors higher b) 110 kV to 150 kV in the areas of Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Israel/PA and Norway and c) 110 kV to 150 kV if these lines cross national frontiers and are operated by TSOs. If the operation voltage differs from that indicated by the colour, this Bågede Harrsele voltage is given alongside the line. Lines with more than 2 circuits bear a numeral that is explained below. The first number Åsele indicates the number of circuits and the voltage at the final stage of construction (depending on the design of towers); the Hirvisuo transmission grid is also transmission numerals in brackets indicate the number of circuits and the voltage at the present stage of construction. Uimaharju 35°E Alholmen FINLAND Kondopoga Bessakerfjellet Trattberget Stornorrfors Kondopoga (16) 1 1x380 + 2x220 11 2x380 + 2x220 (1x220) 21 4x380 (1x220) 31 4x380 (2x380 + 2x220) Wisaforest Alapitkä 2 2x380 + 2x220 12 2x380 + 2x220 (2x220) 22 4x380 (2x220) 32 4x380 (3x380 + 1x220) Havsnäs Hällby 3 3x380 13 2x380 + 2x220 (3x220) 23 4x380 (3x220) 33 4x380 + 2x220 (2x380 + 1x220) Gulsele 4 4x380 14 2x380 + 2x220 (4x220) 24 4x380 (1x380) 34 4x380 + 2x220 (3x380 + 2x220) Stensjön Pamilo 5 4x380 + 2x220 15 2x380 + 2x220 (1x380 + 1x220) 25 4x380 (2x380) 35 4x380 + 2x220 (2x380) 6 2x380 + 1x220 16 2x380 + 2x220 (1x380 + 2x220) 26 4x380 (3x380) 36 3x220 Degerforsen 7 2x380 + 4x220 17 2x380 + 2x220 (1x380 + 3x220) 27 4x380 (1x380 + 1x220) 37 4x220 (1x220) Olden Suoyarvi Petrozavodskmash 8 2x380 + 2x220 (1x380) 18 2x380 + 2x220 (2x380 + 1x220) 28 4x380 (1x380 + 2x220) 38 4x220 (2x220) Juveln Lasele Långbjörn Joensuu 9 2x380 + 2x220 (2x380) 19 1x380 + 2x220 (1x380 + 1x220) 29 4x380 (1x380 + 3x220) 39 4x220 (3x220) Åfjord 10 2x380 + 4x220 (4x220) 30 4x380 (2x380 + 1x220 Betåsen 20 1x380 + 2x220 (1x220) 40 4x220 Storfinnforsen Alajärvi Petrozavodsk Drevlyanka Nämforsen Moliden lines running from the hydro power NGC threshold in MW Hitra Ramsele Kilforsen Moforsen Tuovila Järpströmmen Kattstrupeforsen Forsmo All existing power plants and those under construction with NGC (Net Generating Capacity) equal or higher than the values Strinda Högåsen Gammalänge Torkkola indicated in the following table are displayed on the map even if they are not connected to the high-voltage network. CHP Snilldal Stugun Lyaskelya Smøla Hjälta Vaskiluoto Äänekoski (Combined Heat & Power) classification (coal, natural gas, biomass ...) is based on main fuel. The third column of the table Orkdal below indicates the visibility of CHP by country. Mörsil Huutokoski Sällsjö Seinäjoki Midskog Forsse Vihtavuori Country Non renew- Renew- CHPs Country Non renew- Renew- CHPs Trollheim Klæbu able able included able able included Näverede Surna Brattsberg Krångede Stadsforsen Albania 100 20 n.a. Iceland 10 10 no Santavuori Austria 100 50 yes 100 n.a. Svarthålsforsen Sortavalskaya Ireland 50 Grana Hölleforsen Belgium 100 100 yes Italy 100 50 n.a. Nea Bräcke Petäjävesi Keljonlahti Bosnia & Herzegovina 100 50 no Latvia 100 40 no Järkvissle Bulgaria 75 60 yes Lithuania 100 30 yes Trångfors plants in northern Finland to the Croatia 100 40 yes Luxembourg 100 50 yes Brattset Mörttjärnberget Bergeforsen (220) Cyprus 100 30 n.a. Montenegro 100 50 no Nizhne-Svirskaya HPP-9 150 Torpshammar Nysäter Czech Republic 30 yes The Netherlands 100 50 no Sunndalsøra Kristiina Denmark 100 100 yes Norway 50 50 no Aura Litjfossen Rätan Ånge Jämsä Estonia 100 50 yes Poland 200 50 no Bandsjö Finland 100 50 yes Ørskog Portugal 100 50 yes Ulset Kristinestad France 150 80 yes Romania 100 50 yes Driva Långå Vaple Toivila Visulahti FYROM 100 50 yes Russia 80 45 yes Grytten Järnvägsforsen Hällsjö Kaukopää GB (England & Wales) 100 100 yes Serbia 100 50 yes Turinge Metsälä GB (Northern Ireland) 100 50 yes Slovak Republic 100 100 yes Pursiala Imatra GB (Scotland South) 30 30 yes Slovenia 80 10 yes Lielahti Svetogorskaya HPP-11 GB (Scotland North) 10 10 yes Spain 65 50 no Tafjord Nordiåsen Tainionkoski 5°W Germany 200 100 yes Sweden 100 100 n.a. Ørsta Greece 100 50 yes Switzerland 100 100 no Peittoo Naistenlahti Kangasala cities and industrial centres in south- Hungary 50 50 yes Turkey* 100 50 n.a. Tahkoluoto Joutseno NORWAY Sveg Kaukas Vyborgskaya Kamennogorskaya Power systems Ulvila Melo Kuusaanniemi Syas Ljusdal Meri-Pori Lavianvuori Yllikkälä Framruste Vågåmo Laforsen Rendalen Krokströmmen Kaanaa Kuusankoski 60°N Åskara Ålfoten Mertaniemi Harjavalta Huittinen Koria Kymijärvi Zelenogorskaya 420 Jostedal Nedre Vinstra Harpefossen Dönje Olkiluoto Hikiä Kymi ENTSO-E Other power Moskog Skagen-Fortun Anjala members* systems Leirdøla SWEDEN Metsä-Rauma Rauma Mussalo Severo-Zapadnaya CHPP 400 kV Forssa Tyin Trängslet 1 an 0kV) ern Finland. It is also characterised *TEIAŞ is an ENTSO-E observer member Øvre Vinstra Söderala k 0 Anttila no-S Årøy Hunderfossen Fen o-Skan 2 (5 n Loviisa Saint-Petersburg n Lutufallet Fe Nurmijärvi Leningradskaya NPP Høyanger Fardal in Sogn Neste Porvoo Hove Lomen Torpa Tammisto Borgund Åbjøra Ockelbo Martinlaakso Länsisalmi Refsdal Koporskaya 0 kV Kirishskaya TPP n 1 40 Lieto Vuosaari no-Ska Fen Salo Kopula Aurland no-Skan 2 (500kV) Hanasaari Fen Es Mongstad Bagn Höljes Valbo Älvkarleby Naantali Espoo tlink 2 Leningradskaya Lindås Steinsland Heimsil 1 ) Gatchinskaya kV Kirkniemi Salmisaari Ängsberg Dannebo ÅL-Link (80
Heimsil 2 Kellosaari Ust'-Luga ink) Stackbo Es 60°N Dale Evanger Suomenoja tlink
2 0 k (Estl k 0 by the ‘atom ring’ around southern Finnböle 15 Forsmark Chudovo Sima Hofors ÅL-Link (80 kV) Inkoo Kingiseppskaya Samnanger Nes Bäsna Untra Balti EJ Nygard Repbäcken Horndal Eidfjord Ådal Gråska Hallstavik Tingsbacka Püssi Bergen Kaggefoss 150 Eesti EJ Oksla k (Estlin Uvdal Tuna Iru Novgorodskaya Bredåker k) Aruküla Rakvere Mauranger Nore Ringerike Harku Luzhskaya Tysso Senneby Auvere EJ Eidskog Morgårdshammar Oslo Uppsala Malsta Paldiski Kvanndal Vemork Såheim Sylling L543 Novgorodskaya CHPP Finland. Faster than expected growth Røldal Novle Plenninge Kiisa Yugo-Zapadnaya Kjela Songa Rånåfossen Starfors Kiisa Emergency PP Blåfalli Hamra Boländerna Odensala Sauda Follo Charlottenberg Finnslätten Aulepa Paide Hjartdøla Kykkelsrud Vallentuna Ulla-Førre Vinje Flesaker Himmeta Starorusskaya Hylen Holen Tokke Vamma Lindbacka Arosverket Stockholm Värtaverket Liastølen Kvilldal Sundsbarm Saurdal Tegneby Åbyverket Karstø Hasle Åker Ekudden Tartu Baillie & Bernaheig MeyGen Rød Borgvik Kolbotten ESTONIA Roskrepp Hallsberg Solberga 275 kV Tveiten in the wind power in northern Finland 275kV Duge Brokke Halden Hedenlunda Hall Thurso South Fjone Sindi Stavanger Grenland Porsgrund Östansjö Causeymire Spittal Tjodan Kvinen Finndøla Pskov Boulfruich Burn of Whilk Jørundland Bamble Glan Kilingi-Nomme Tjørhom Hekni Tsirguliina Pskovskaya TPP Camster Loviseholm Solhom Gordonbush Ruusmäe Beatrice Høg-Jæren Händelöverket Velikoretskaya Valka GB (3) Tonstad Moholm Timmersdala A Beinn Tharsuinn 01 Earlstoun 18 Longannet Kimstad E 0 kV S increases the north-south transmis- Rothes II 02 Glenlee 19 Grangemouth k 50 IC Linköping T h Sea Lin AL Nort B Rothes I Hill of Towie 03 Carsfad 20 Bonnybridge Valmiera Alūksne Ana-Sira Steinfoss Keith 04 Kendoon 21 Easterhouse Skogssäter Trollhättan Kolstad 05 Dalswinton 22 Glasgow Boyndie Feda Kristiansand
Caithness Moray HVDC Edintore 06 Galawhistle 23 Giffnock Caithness Moray HVDC Moray Caithness 275kV 07 Calder Water 24 Neilston Gordonstown Hill Peterhead 08 Andershaw 25 Busby Blackhillock 275kV 09 Black Law Extension 26 Whitelee Kilanda Dummuies SK Rīgas TEC 2 Novosokol'niki 275 Ventspils Clashindarroch SK3 350 kV1 Barkeryd kV 10 Fallago Rig 27 East Kilbride South & 2 2 SK4 50 150 275kV 5 2 Hywind 275kV 0 kV Stenkullen 7 5 0 Winergy VP k 11 Toddleburn k Tenhult V 28 West Browncastle Glens of Foundland V Rīgas TEC 1 sion need which puts added pres- Stoneywood 12 Fallago 29 Strathaven Hisingen Ryaverket Kintore Imanta Persley 13 Pogbie 30 Wishaw Oskarshamn LATVIA Lindome Strömma Salaspils Mid Hill 14 Dun Law Extension 31 Newarthill Bišuciems Tume Rēzekne 15 Keiths Hill 32 Clydes Mill Aizkraukle Konti-Skan Rīgas Krustpils 285 Uddebo
275kV 250 SK 1+2 Clunie 275kV 16 Shrubhill 33 Harburn Head 350 SK4 500 kV 275kV SK Tullo 17 Currie 34 Tormywheel 3 Ķeguma HES KS 1 Horred Pļaviņu HES Drumderg 285 KS 2 Brocēni Viskaļi 275kV Ringhals 275kV Tealing Nereta
ed - 450 kV
NorN Vester Hassing sures on so called P1 cut. Cut P1 splits Līksna St. Fillans Häradsbo Nordjyllandsværket Parovėja Daugavpils Markinch Alvesta Grobiņa Kabaldikai Ferslev Mažeikiai Liosna Westfield Breared Nybro Mūša Polock Mossmorran Anholt Zarasai Novopolotskaja TEC Smeaton Torness 330 Cockenzie Aikengall North Sea Link 500 kV Benaičiai 55°N Ignalina Vitebsk 15400kV Crystal Rig Šiauliai Panevėžys 400kV 400kV 14 400kV Telšiai Utena 400kV Penmanshiel Sūdėnai Darbenai Panevėžio E Opsa 13 Quixwood 400kV Tjele Vidzy Hemsjö Vėjas 1 10 11 12 Karlshamm 110 kV
N Idomlund Nord Balt Lukomlskaja o Didžiasalis 400kV rd
Finland into two areas: the north, with L Trige ink - 525 kV Studstrupværket Söderåsen GRES Long Park Eccles Teglstrupgård Nord Balt Klaipėda Šiauduva Stärnö Kunigiškiai Hovegård Postavy Gørløse Mörap
3 Kyndbyværket Čiūteliai 30 400kV Kreivėnai Pabradė Stevens Croft Hurva Didšiliai LauksargiaiLITHUANIA S Askær Malling w Šyša Jonava e Pol Podoljci Strepeikiai Lynemouth Horns Rev 3 Barsebäck Geišiai Neris Mogilev- Landerupgård Asnæsværket Sege 400kV DENMARK Pagėgiai Belorusskaya AE Severni Fourstones Blythe Horns Rev 2 Lietuvos E 275kV Jurbarkas Öresundsverket 0 Kaunas Borisov 275kV A 11 Kalveliai 55°N Skærbækværket 275kV 275kV Tynemouth 275kV E S Revsing Arrie Sovetsk Bitėnai its focus on hydro and wind power, and South Shields TH Borrby R Horns Rev 1 Herslev Kruseberg 275kV O Stella West N (60 kV) Smorgon Mogilevskaja West Boldon Avedøreværket Poland Kruonio HAE 30°E Fynsværket (60 kV)BOYS-HAE TEC 2 Offerton Esbjergværket 01 Komorowice Vilnius Oshmani Bjæverskov Bornholm Mogilev 220
le 400 kV Hawthorne Pit Kingstrup Fraugde b 02 Czeczot Severnaya-330 Kybartai Vostotsnaya
Ca HAE c 110 kV Spennymoor Endrup i Severnaja København 110 Alytus Šalčininkai 275kV Hart Moor Balt 03 Bieruń Molodechno Norton Stigsnæs BOYS- Pregol'skaya RUSSIA BtB TEC 4 Saltholme Hartlepool GB (2) H.C.Ørsted-værket 04 Jaworzno III Nesterov TPP Putinai Tod Point 01 S. Manchester SylWin Ensted Amager-værket 05 Łaziska Kaliningradskaya CHPP-2 275kV275kV Minskaja 275kV Żarnowiec Grangetown Teesside 02 Bredbury Germany Kassø SweP 400 kV 06 Kopanina Koljadichi e o TEC 5 alpha bl l Lackenby a Greystones V AC Osieki 400kV C Tsentralnaya Voronovo 00 Zukunft 13 Selbeck 03 Stalybridge Kriegersic Flak SylWin1 50 k 1 Hutton Wilton 01 Siersdorf 14 Büscherhof Balt D.Les the south, where nuclear and thermal 04 Stocksbridge Słupsk Leipalingis Lapichi Miradino 05 Neepsend 02 Oberzier 15 Eiberg Lida Jardelund Baltic 2 Wikinger Wierzbięcino 110 KONTEK Gdańsk 2 CHP
03 Paffendorf 16 Rosenblumendelle e Flensburg 06 Sheffield City l C A Gdańsk I Marszewo 0 1 Osipovichi Poppleton A cab 1 Bobrujskaja 04 Neurath 17 Scholven Handewitt 150 kV Korsze 07 Jordanthorpe OBR C BELARUS Arkona-Becken Gdańsk Błonie Skelton G. 05 Niederaußem 18 Witten Rødsand 2 Ełk BIS Stolbtsy TEC 2 Bradford West 275kV 08 Wincobank Südost Darłowo Ełk 06 Rommerskirchen 19 Koepchenwerk BorWin Husum/Nord Baltic 1 Tychowo (1) Zhlobin Osbaldwick 09 Pitsmoor gamma Rødsand 1 Padiham400kV Zapadnaja Cobra cable 150 kV AC 275kV 07 Gohrpunkt 20 Kruckel Kiel 400kV 275kVKirkstall beta beta Tymień Grodno Beloruskaja 400kV 10 Templeborough Kiel/West Żydowo Gdańsk 4 Thornton 00 275kV 275kV k
275kV 08 Norf 21 Elmenhorst Süderdonn Orłowo 275kV HelWin V 275kV400kV 11 Thurcroft Lüdershagen 275kV alpha Bardy-Dygowo Kierzkowo Przyjaźń 120 Dunowo 220+110 Grodnenskaja TEC Whitegate Creyke Beck Westermost Rough 09 St. Peter 22 Dortmund Olsztyn 14 Drax 275kV 12 West Melton alpha One circuit (to Olsztyn) operates as 220 kV 400kV275kV 400kV Heide/West 400kV 275kV Rochdale Elland 400kV 275kV 5kV Audorf/Süd Baranovichi 27 BorWin3 275kV 10 Eller 23 Pöppinghausen Kiel-Süd 400kV Hedon 13 Ferrybridge Svetlogorskaja HelWin Grodno Juznaya 275kV 400kV 13 400kV Humber Gateway He 1 Olsztyn Mątki Keadby lWi Karścino Żydowo 400kV 400kV 11 Osterath 24 Bochum n2 Karcino 400kV 400kV 275kV 400kV 400kV 15 14 Monk Fryston 400kV Pelplin 400kV beta Lubmin power are predominant. 400kV Saltend South Wilster Rostock Pobłocie 400kV 15 Eggborough 12 Dülken Alpha Baltic Cable 400 kV 400kV 275kV Gemini DolWin 275kV 04 275kV Killingholme Bentwisch Svetlogorskaja TEC 03 275kV 400kV 09275kV 16 Brigg Herrenwyk 01 05 275kV10 Immingham 16 Thorpe Marsh alpha Ventus Recław 75kV 02 2 12 Siedenbrünzow Białystok Temporary out of operation Slutskaya Kalijnaja
kV 275kV275kV 275kV Grimsby West Luxembourg Zelvenskaja 50 Nordergründe Brunsbüttel Itzehoe 275kV South Humber Bank 4 One circuit (to Olsztyn) operates as 220 kV 06 275kV Lübeck 400kV
- e 400kV275kV 08 Aldwarke nd 275kV Nordergrü Iven 275kV 275kV alpha v BorWin2 Bo Rossj 275kV Ned
01 Bertrange r Do 400kV rW Siems 07 400kV D Brokdorf
No ol l Win Resko 2 i Riffgat e n1 Win2 ntus 11 400kV Güstrow Grudziądz Węgrowo gamma 1 275kV Cottam West Burton 02 Bascharage 275kV Hamburg-Nord Narew CDCL Inhausen Kummerfeld Altentreptow/Nord Police Ivatsevichi Chesterfield Lincs 03 Belval TenneT DE Ri ffga Hagermarsch High Marnham t Görries Brinsworth 400kV 04 Oxylux Voslapp Götzdorf 50HzT Wessin Westereems DolWin3 Hamburg-Ost Altentreptow/Süd Ostrołęka B 400kV 400kV Maade 20 Łomża Cellarhead Staythorpe 2 Glinki Inner Dowsing 05 Esch Eemshaven Wilhelmshaven Wedel Pasewalk Szczecin CHP Drakelow Stoke Bardolph GREAT 06 Schifflange Emden/Borßum Jasiniec Mozir Willington Bicker Fenn Magnum Mikashevichi 0kV Sheringham Shoal Alfstedt Parchim/Süd Vierraden Berjezovskaja 400kV DES Krümmel 400kV 400kV 40 Morzyczyn Operates as 220 kV 07 Berchem - W Conneforde Piła 400kV Vierverlaten E 380+220 GRES The Norwegian transmission grid W220 Moorburg 400kV Unterweser Dollern V Emden/Ost Putlitz Pomorzany Chwiram 0k Sutton Bridge 08 Heisdorf Krzewina 40 Ratcliffe-on-Soar Bergum Bydgoszcz
400kV 3 Lüneburg 275kV n Hamburg- Bertikow POLAND Bushbury 09 Sotel Louwsmeer Delfzijl Zuid Krajnik Toruń Elana 275kV lWi Zachód 400kV Bustleholm Eemshaven WeiwerdDo Farge Süd Putlitz/Süd Margonin Płock 400kV Spalding North 10 Blooren PCK Schwedt Banie Wyszków 400kV BRITAIN Włocławek Hams Hall King’s Lynn Robbenplaat Meeden Huntorf Niedervieland CHP 275kV 400kV 275kV 400kV Perleberg Płock Pinsk 275kV 275kV 275 Diele Brest-2 Enderby Walpole Norwich Sottrum Gransee Włocławek Żerań CHP Fryslan 3 DolWin Stadorf Dolna Nechells275kV Velsen 24/25 Oudehaske Zeyerveen Rhede Azoty Towarowa 275kV Peterborough Main Blockland Korytnica 275kV Scroby Sands Malchow Odra Gorzów Coventry Corby Beverwijk Dörpen/West Ganderkesee Miłosna 400kV Hollandse kust Noord Diemen Włocławek CHP 400kV 275kV Hennigsdorf Mitte Podolszyce Mościska Berkswell Grendon Great Yarmouth Hemweg 8 & 9 NAM Niederlangen Wechold Friedrichshain Brest-1 Schoonebeek Cloppenburg Ost Stendal West Teufelsbruch Siedlce Ujrzanów Feckenham 400kV Eaton Socon Oostzaan Egmond Ens Meppen Klein Ilsede Reuter West Baczyna Poznań-Karolin CHP Ołtarzew Ohlensehlen 220 Burwell Main ECW Czerwonak Pątnów II PP Stanisławów 400kV aan Zee Hessenweg Hanekenfähr St. Hülfe reflects the fact that most parts of the Patford Bridge Landesbergen Wahle Neuenhagen Pątnów 22 Pątnów PP Leighton Little Barford Prinses Amalia Almere Lelystad Westerkappeln Wustermark 0 Sochaczew Siekierki CHP Emsland 20 Braunschweig Nord Sizewell Ijmond 2 GERMANY Operates as 220 kV (single circuit) Mory Buzzard East Caydon Luchterduinen Zwolle Lehrte Reuter Plewiska Sundon Maxima Centrale Stöcken Hattorf Brandenburg 0 Marzahn Heinersdorf 26 0+22 Wymondley Bramford Hollandse kust zuid 19 Amersham Main Heyden Lahe 38 Wuhlheide Piaseczno Rivnenska NPP Wehrendorf 220+ West Poznań Konin Ibbenbüren 380+220 Wolfsburg Lubiechnia Centrale Diemen Hengelo 110 Cowley Greater Gabbard Ovenstädt Hannover Charlottenburg Lichterfelde Południe Rye House Pelham Wateringen Meißen Helmstedt Wielka Kromolice T-Point Lage Weide 0 400kV NETHERLANDS Zgierz Wolmirstedt
West 11 Wilmersdorf 11 5 Den Haag Veltheim Adamów Lubartów Culham Jet Elstree 27 Braintree Gunfleet Sands II Westerlee Merwerdekanaal Zielona Kovel 400kV Centrale Bleiswijk Lüstringen Bielefeld Algermissen Thyrow 275kV Maasvlakte Gronau Kozienice St. Johns Wood 10 09 11 Rayleigh Main 6 Buschhaus Sandtorstraße Eisenhüttenstadt Góra CHP Lisova 275kV275kV Maasvlakte ROCA Ost Mehrum Dychów Leszno Eickum 330 03 275kV BritNed - 450 kV Janów Warley 1 Gleidingen Doetinchem 5 12 2 400kV08 Hesseln Puławy 275kV Krimpen Iver 75 Gunfleet Sands I Centrale Dodewaard Bechterdissen 400kV Hallendorf Preilack Gronowo 275kV 275kV Didcot 02 kV Roxel 275kV 07 5kV 400400kV Simonshaven Eurogen Lublin Chełm 01 27 275kV kV 400kV Lage Leśniów 275kV Rotterdam Gütersloh Godenau Pabianice London Array BritNed - 450 kV Kusenhorst Ostrów 400kV 400kV Melksham Laleham 275kV 04 13 16 Coryton Rijnmond Crayestein Werne-Stockum Ragow electricity supply in most parts of the 06 14 V Borssele 1-4 Walsum Lippe Lublin- Hrabiv 400kV 20 275kV 8 Grohnde UKRAINE 400k 400kV Maastroom Niederrhein Förderstedt Jessen/Nord 275kV 275kV Geertruidenberg 05 15 400kV Herdersbrug Polsum Krobia Piotrków Rożki 400kV Grain Bank Zonder Naam Datteln Enniger Żukowice Wrotków CHP Bramley 275kV Moerdijk Gelderland Erzhausen 275kV Amer 9 Abramowice 400kV 400kV Lutsk Pivdenna Hurst 17 400kV Borssele 30 Vörden Marke Jänschwalde 19 Kemsley Bligh bank Gersteinwerk8 Windpark Rogowiec 400kV 18 400kV 400kV Pfalzdorf Zhytomyrska W. Weybridge 1 Sloe 8 Fleet 400kV Thanet Tilburg Elsen s to one of 13 units Rivne Rentel bank Borssele 21 Schönewalde Graustein Bełchatów fer e re Rowdown Boxmeer lin Hardegsen Klostermansfeld Schwarze ction Lutsk pivnichna Canterbury North central Rilland Amer 23 Lippborg Paderborn- e Thornton bank Voerde 17 Polkowice Conn Iłża II Nursling Chessington Littlebrook Stevin Zandvliet Unna Novovolynsk 24 22 Süd Pumpe Bełchatów 400kV Cleve Hill Würgassen Göttingen 400k 4 circuits Utfort V Beddington Gezelle ELSTA Bergkamen 400kV Canterbury Exxon 14 18 Pągów 400kV 18 Schkopau Boxberg 50°N 400kV Eindhoven 20 Nehden Bärwalde Pasikurowice Khmelnytska NPP 400kV 400kV Sellindge Nemo Mündelheim 15 Kopalnia Zamość 400kV Doel Total 220 Garenfeld Wolkramshausen Ostrowiec Mokre Bolney Les attaques Warande 16 Lippendorf Mikułowa Czarna Trębaczew 210 Van Maerlant Frimmersdorf 19 Lauchstädt Kielce Piaski Temporary out of operation Lillo Bixterheide Radial Lovedean Massenhoven Twistetal 110 Streumen operation Dobrotvirska Fawley Inesco Taucha Kielce Radial operation Ninfield Gravelines Brode Knippegroen Eeklo Noord 380+1 12 13 Hattingen Sandershausen 50 Maasbracht Pulgar 210 3 Elverlingsen Hagenwerder CHP Heze VYK-MBT380 10 Schmölln TPP Shepetivka Mercator 11 08 18 Koziatyn Botley Wood Shoreham Dungeness Rodenhuize Claus A Linde Wrocław CHP Radkowice Stalowa Wola Cowes Braek Horta Lint Claus C Bergshausen Eula Niederwartha Aniołów country were developed through the Mandarins Meerhout Ohligs 18 Waldeck Izegem Rönkhausen Großschwab- Holque Van Eyck Neurath 07 Arpe Freiberg/Nord Dresden-Süd Radyvyliv Ringvaart Wahle-Mecklar Woestyne Tessenderlo 09 Opladen Borken Wrocław Huta Częstochowa Joachimów Połaniec 0° Echinghen 5°E Altenkleusheim 10°E hausen 15°ETurów 20°E 25°E 50°N regional development of hydropower. Information compiled under the responsibility of the ENTSO-E Data Expert Group. © ENTSO-E 2019 The Norwegian transmission grid Source: ENTSO-E1
1 https://docstore.entsoe.eu/Documents/Publications/maps/2019/Map_Northern-Europe-3.000.000.pdf
11 Fortum Energy Review 2019
changing the zones as a response to and congestion management4. In the Investments in main grid changes in regional supply situations. proposed configuration regarding As can be seen in Figure 2, Statnett This is at odds with the EU policy, Sweden, a modified SE4 is introduced has invested heavily during the last but there is temporary a Norwegian in the Stockholm Metropolitan Area. few years. Large investments are exemption. Market splitting is used The current SE3 is expanded to include partly explained by the construction of to deal with major and long-term con- the remaining area of current SE4. In cross-border interconnectors to Ger- gestions in the regional and central Norway a split of NO4 is proposed, many and to the UK. The cross-bor- grid system, or possible lack of energy and a new NO6 is introduced. No der interconnectors currently under in defined geographical areas. At the cross-border bidding zones have been construction align well with Norway’s moment Norway is divided into five suggested. For Denmark and Finland energy policy to enable closer inte- day-ahead/intraday areas1. no alternative configuration will be gration with neighbouring markets SvK divided Sweden into four bid- assed at this stage. and increase the value of Norwegian ding zones in 2011. The aim of intro- renewables and foster closer co-op- ducing bidding zones was to delimit congestion points within the Swedish electricity system and allow electricity Figure 2 – Investment of Nordic TSOs, 2009–2028 (MEUR) trading to adjust to effectively avail- able transmission capacity through 1000 market prices, rather than through arbitrary curtailment measures at the borders2. The commitments set by 800 the European Commission in 2010 are binding on SvK for ten years3. Finland has opted for another 600 approach. Based on the electricity market act, Fingrid shall plan and 400 construct the main grid in a way that the transmission capacity is sufficient to keep the whole country as a single 200 bidding zone. Two exceptions to the obligations are specified in the act. Eastern Denmark and Western 0 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 24 2 2 2 2 Denmark are always treated as two dif 0 0 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ferent bidding zones because Denmark 2 2 belongs to two synchronous areas. Statnett Energinett SvK Fingrid Nordic TSOs have jointly launched a regular review of existing bidding Note: 2009–2018 realised investments, 2019–2028 planned investments. The period 2016-2028 is as zone configuration as required in reg- reported in the NGDP 2019 and the other historical data is from the TSOs’ annual reports. ulation (EU) 2015/1222 on establishing Note: Energinet’s historical figures are corporate level investments excluding acquisitions, but include smaller investments to the gas grid infrastructure on top of the transmission infrastructure. a guideline on capacity allocation Source: Statnett, Energinet, SvK, Fingrid
1 https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/globalassets/download-center/day-ahead/elspot-area-change-log.pdf 2 https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-425_en.htm?locale=en 3 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39351/39351_1223_4.pdf 4 https://www.statnett.no/contentassets/f4a33c4dd9504acbb44399298d8aa822/nordic-bzrr-alternative-configuration.pdf
12 Fortum Energy Review 2019
eration. Investments are expected to decline in the coming years. Table 3 – Congestion income (MEUR) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 A distinctive feature of SvK’s and Statnett 96.6 119.2 125.9 110.4 100.1 Energinet’s investments is a great Energinet 71.6 74.0 55.5 72.3 75.4 annual fluctuation. As the Swedish SvK 128.8 221.1 115.6 135.5 158.1 transmission network is old, large Fingrid 51.2 90.9 39.9 25.8 29.7 investments are planned in the coming years. In total, SvK’s investment plan Total 348.2 505.2 336.9 344.1 363.3 for 2018-2027 includes investments of SEK 45 billion (around EUR 4500m). Source: Statnett, Energinet, SvK, Fingrid Fingrid’s investments in the main grid have been quite stable in recent years and there are no major changes expected in the near future. During the The majority of this investment years (Table 3). There has been some period 2019-2028, Fingrid intends to will therefore be used to reinforce yearly variation depending on the invest EUR 1200m to ensure the suffi- cross-border connections and north- production surplus in the Nordic area ciency of the grid capacity and system south transmission capacity. among other things. SvK and Statnett reliability. One of the main objectives Congestion income is one metric for are the Nordic TSOs with the highest of the plan is to keep Finland as a sin- the adequacy of transmission capacity yearly congestion income. The use gle bidding zone which requires strong and market efficiency. In the Nordic of congestion income is discussed in connections in order to balance varia- countries, congestion income has chapter 3.1. tions in production and consumption. totalled EUR 300-400million in recent
13 Fortum Energy Review 2019
3 Transmission grid investment
Grid development The planning and investment pro- next step in the investment process is cesses described above are linked and that each case is studied in detail by the and Investment feed into each other, to some extent. respective TSOs. At this stage additional During the interviews it was mentioned For example, the Nordic grid develop- analysis and sensitivities are carried by many that grid planning and invest- ment plan is supposed to function as out but the process for agreeing inputs ment is probably the least coordinated a complementary bridge between the for the analysis is not clear. In addition, activity between the Nordic TSOs. A national planning processes and the more local aspects related to invest- variety of reasons were given for this ENTSO-E TYNDP. When Nordel was ments including local grid reinforce- view despite the fact that Nordic TSOs integrated into ENTSO-E in 2009, the ments are assessed. are involved in preparing grid develop- existing structures for planning and All of this means that the position ment plans on many different levels: operations were transferred to ENTSO-E of a TSO on investments can change as • The ENTSO-E Union-wide ten-year (i.e. Regional Group Nordic) as opposed the process develops. Any final recom- network development plan is pub- to markets which were kept as a Nordic mendations on investments are made lished biennially (TYNDP). A separate structure (i.e. Market Steering Group). on a bilateral basis before being submit- regional investment plan for the Based on the interviews there were ted to relevant national authorities for Baltic Sea region is also published. In some issues relating to the roles and approval. In this way investment deci- addition, the European Commission coordination in Nordic grid planning sions can ultimately be seen as national publishes Baltic Energy Market Inter- processes vis-à-vis European processes. and unilateral. connection Plan (BEMIP) focusing on The common Nordic Planning Group The responsibility for decision mak- the Nordic and Baltic Sea region. (NPG) was re-established in 2014 and ing is ultimately political. Each Nordic • The Nordic Grid Development Plan uses the ENTSO-E scenarios as a start- TSO has its own national regulatory describes the ongoing and future ing point for deeper Nordic analysis. framework and processes to prepare investments in the Nordic grid1. The NPG is a joint grid planning group con- the national grid development plan plan is published by the Nordic TSOs sisting of members from the four TSOs. and approve grid investments to be at the request of the Nordic Council The preparation of network develop- implemented. The final decision making of Ministers. ment plans is statutory at the first two power of cross-border interconnectors • National grid development plans levels described above but the plans by is outside the Nordic TSOs. In Norway, developed by each TSO. themselves are not binding on TSOs. The for major grid decisions, the decision making authority is, due to high level of conflict, sometimes elevated from the NVE to the Ministry and to the Government (Council of Ministers), and Grid investments are subject to national interests and in some cases even to Parliament (in prioritisation particular related to major cross-border cables). In Denmark, the Ministry of • Grid planning is seen as the least coordinated Nordic TSO Climate, Energy and Utilities has the activity decision making authority. In Finland, • Grid initiatives do not always progress. TSOs are good in Ministry of Economic Affairs and making long range plans but not so good in implementing Employment is responsible for decision them making of cross-border interconnectors. • Prioritisation of Nordic grid investment is a vague subject In Sweden, the Parliament takes deci- • Investment decisions are ultimately always national sions on TSO investments. • One or several bidding zones – national or TSO objective? As a result, TSO by itself or NRA or Do the bidding zone differences reflect the structural ministry can stop analysis for intercon- congestion? nectors that might not be a priority. During the interviews, it was mentioned that Nordic TSOs are now more focused
1 https://www.fingrid.fi/globalassets/dokumentit/fi/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedotteet/stet0126_nordic_grid_dp_2019.pdf 2 Shall be applied from 1 January 2020. Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 is repealed.
14 Fortum Energy Review 2019
on internal investments in grid and Figure 3 – Spending of congestion revenues, 2011-2015 (annual average) interconnectors to the continent than 350 M€ new interconnectors between Nordic regions. Part of the reason was due to 300 M€ Capacity guarantees prioritisation. That is, new connections 250 M€ e.g. for new data centres were seen to Capacity investments bring more benefit than building new 200 M€ Transmission tariffs interconnectors, for which the benefits were seen as small. It can also be the 150 M€ Saved on account case that one border is prioritised over 100 M€ another. E.g. it was also mentioned that a previous Danish minister had prior- 50 M€ itised cross-border connections with 0 M€ l Germany more than with Sweden. s d n k d d d a ce lia ny in ay r ia in ia ry m ia ce lic ia ia ia ia lic ia ia ia ro a ia d n a e r a n n r b n n v n n n n t g in n n a a n d a a iu a e b b g la it p e g la r la la a o a u a a It r r e rw m e u u e ov It was also noted that new invest- m la S v n lg lg e d n u r r o n o in p Se Lat m p lb rt g Fr B Aust l u F u Gr Po Ir e Croa e h e e ze t Sw N e Be Esto k A h it S H B Re Ro Re Po ze it G t D a r L ments are often delayed and are not k h e Sw a c M Ne Grea e Mont H always in line with Nordic market devel- lov ia Cz n S s opment. Access to capital was not seen Bo as an issue for TSOs regarding new Source: ENTSO-E, Study supporting the impact assessment concerning transmission tariffs and investments. A more relevant issue was congestion income policies, 2017 seen to be around availability of the sup- ply chain e.g. construction companies, Table 4 – Unit Transmission Tariffs in 2019 Statnett Energinet SvK Fingrid resources etc. It was also noted that Unit transmission tariffs €/MWh Nordic TSOs are also in different phases of grid investment. - 330 kV and above 6.21 11.05 3.37 5.26 - 220-150 kV 6.21 11.05 3.37 5.26
The use of congestion income - 132-50 kV 6.21 11.05 0.001 5.26 As shown in the Figure 3 the Nordic Sharing of network operator charges, % countries have different approaches to accounting and using the congestion - Generation 29.0 4.3 36.0 18.6 income. In Finland, since 2016, Fingrid - Load 71.0 95.7 64.0 81.4 has not presented congestion income as turnover in profit and loss statement. The 1) Not fully comparable with other due to network structure congestion income is included in the bal- Source: ENTSO-E (June 2019) ance sheet. Fingrid has been using con- gestion income only to fund grid invest- ments. Statnett has no separate account The forthcoming internal electricity to most European TSOs (Table 4). SvK’s for congestion income. All investment is market Regulation (2019/9432) states tariffs are one of the lowest in Europe made by spending tariff income and all the procedure for the distribution of but they are not fully comparable due to of the congestion income has been spent congestion income and directs TSOs different network structure. to lower transmission tariffs. Sweden to use congestion income to make suf- and Denmark have used larger shares of ficient cross-border capacity available congestion income on lowering transmis- and when this criterion has been fulfilled sion tariffs or save revenues in a separate revenues can be used to support tariffs. account. In addition to the different Based on the recent study by approaches, also the significance of the ENTSO-E, the unit transmission tariffs of matter is seen in different ways. Statnett and Fingrid are low compared
15 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Cost benefit analysis for grid investments Common standard Nordic CBA methodology is avalaible but Nordic TSOs have agreed on a common the power market scenarios, uncertainties and other inputs harmonised framework for cost benefit cause controversy analysis (CBA). The framework is used in all bi-/multilateral studies for the Nordic • There is a question whose welfare is optimised and how Grid Development Plan1. In the inter- wider Nordic benefits are included in national approval views it was mentioned that the Nordic processes TSOs have developed their own CBA • Different views on economic uncertainties and risks can approach to try and capture uncertainty be used as a means of justifying different prioritisation in a way that is better suited to the Nor- of grid investments dics than the standard European CBA approach. In practice this means the TSOs develop a number of scenarios and sensitivities to test the profitability of a The common Nordic CBA framework Grid investments must therefore proposed interconnector. is not intended to be use as basis for have a higher national socio-economic The common CBA takes into account final investment decision. This should benefit that socio-economic cost. In all relevant costs and benefits, from be done by the TSOs themselves. It was addition, there is a question around a Nordic socio-economic standpoint. mentioned that the selection of inputs whose social welfare is maximised The levels of detail in the assessments for scenarios can cause controversy and (market versus country). For example, depend on the given stage of the actual the process is not always clear. In case it was noted in the Danish case that project under investigation and all fac- of projects of common interest (PCI), the the socio-economic optimisation start- tors listed in Figure 4 are not relevant to CBA assessment shall follow the meth- ing point is Denmark. In addition, the assess in each project. odology prepared by ENTSO-E. general formulation written into the The CBA shall be based on at least While national electricity market Energy Act is for the benefit of (Danish) one scenario that is commonly accepted legislation and TSO’s investment guide- consumers with a softer formulation of by the Nordic TSOs and at least two time lines do not limit the scope of CBA to Nordic needs. steps shall be used in accordance with the national standpoint, in principle, the the scenario. A sensitivity analysis can national interests and socio-economic be performed to capture the changes benefits are prioritised over those of the and uncertainty in key parameters. other countries.
Figure 4 – Monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits in the common CBA
COSTS BENEFITS
Investment costs Market benefits Transmission losses Monetised indicators Integration of renewable Operation costs energy
CO2 emissions Security of supply Non-monetised indicators Flexibility and trade balancing
PROJECT ASSESMENT
1 https://www.statnett.no/contentassets/61e33bec85804310a0feef41387da2c0/nordic-grid-development-plan-2019-for-web.pdf
16 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Cost and benefit sharing in grid Asymmetric costs and benefits between countries investment complicate cross-border investments and is a new normal The history of Nordic cooperation has • Simple win-win investment cases have been completed been successful as it has been based on and new projects are more complicated with uneven and mutual benefit. With deeper integration, uncertain benefits and costs. E.g. triggering additional the mutual benefit is not always so clear investments within a country or that the original to see or benefits are not shared as conditions assumed when assessing interconnector equal anymore and this can be a barrier income change. for investments. There are examples • Some projects with asymmetric benefits have been where there is conflict between national realised in the Nordics. TSOs have the freedom to and Nordic interests. negotiate and agree cost and benefit sharing on a The point was made that if there are case by case basis. However, the procedures and asymmetric costs and lots of uncer- principles are not so clear. That is, there are no standard tainty, there could be a real risk that one procedures and projects do not always proceed despite country actually loses rather than gains positive CBA results. and that forecast uncertainty is also a • One factor complicating the cost and revenue sharing barrier to investment in schemes with agreements is the threat of challenges from regulators very asymmetric benefits. to take retrospective actions on revenue sharing schemes that TSOs have agreed.
17 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Case study
Danish-German border and Skagerrak 4
Denmark and Norway are linked by of Appeal who then decided that the Denmark and Germany. There is a stepwise 4 cables – Skagerrak 1-4 that run reservation for exchange of aFRR could target (to 2020) to reach certain minimum between DK1 and NO2 price areas. continue until the end of 2019. During capacities of cross-border capacity that Skagerrak cables 1-2 were laid in 1977 the appeal, the TSOs cited the impor- will be made available to the market in each and Skagerrak 3 in 1993. The combined tance of the arrangement as a prerequi- hour. The respective TSOs (Energinet and capacity of SK1-3 is 1000MW. In 2009, site for Statnett’s investment in SK42. Tennet) are responsible for implement- the fourth cable (Skagerrak 4 – “SK4”) The second part of the revenue shar- ing the declaration. The requirement to of 700MW capacity was agreed to be ing agreement is that Statnett receives open capacity to market participants is developed in partnership between congestion income from DK-DE border. addressed in the Clean Energy Package Energinet and Statnett. Licenses were In practice this means there is an agree- (minimum of 70% capacity). approved in June 2010 (Norway, OED). ment between Energinet and Statnett In times where physical congestion Commercial operation began at the end that links congestion income on the restricts cross-border capacity, the of 2014. DK-DE border to a payment to Stat- Danish and German TSOs will carry out The costs of SK4 were split equally nett. This is because when decisions countertrading to secure the minimum between Energinet and Statnett. But, about SK4 investments were made, the capacities (in the case of DK1 mostly down as the benefits of the cable were seen alternative for Statnett was to build a regulation using special regulation). This to fall mostly to Denmark then two cable between Norway and Germany. releases virtual capacity to the day-ahead revenue sharing mechanisms were In addition, at that time cross-border market rather than physical capacity and introduced. capacity to Germany was assumed to be so impacts financial trading rather than The first revenue sharing mechanism available. The outturn has shown lower physical flows. was an ancillary service agreement, the availability of cross-border capacity A design feature of special regulation structure of which reflects the sale of and a mechanism has been introduced is that it should not impact the balancing Norwegian aFRR to Energinet over the to increase cross-border capacity to market. Special regulation is selected first 5 years of operation i.e. 100MW of the market between Denmark and after bids for normal balancing have been capacity on SK4 is reserved for aFRR1. Germany. selected. Energinet submitted a report to The Danish Energy Authority provided Historically, availability of inter- the Danish regulator in early Spring 2019 on conditional approval for the arrange- connector capacity to the day-ahead possible evidence of gaming and monitor- ment and then based on the results of market on the DK1-DE border has been ing is ongoing3. an investigation into the social benefits low due to internal bottlenecks in the after the first year of operation, can- German system. In 2017 the Danish celled the arrangement from 1 January and German Ministries and Regula- 2018 and requested the TSOs to put tors issued a joint declaration stating a more dynamic reservation mecha- the aim of gradually increasing the nism in place. Statnett and Energinet cross-border capacity allocated to appealed to the Danish Energy Board the day-ahead market between West
1 https://www.statnett.no/contentassets/ee224b0a208b4814a4c0f047a2257feb/interconnector-license-applications.pdf 2 https://www.statnett.no/en/about-statnett/news-and-press-releases/News-archive-2018/ danish-authorities-rule-to-continue-capacity-reservation/ 3 https://en.energinet.dk/-/media/BE76CDEDF65D47B287006B256F2DD440. pdf?la=en&hash=CC2809B3F4910EDC84087DD094C512F04A279EF5
18 Fortum Energy Review 2019
19 Fortum Energy Review 2019
4 System operation
ystem operation is a TSO activity with the most effective Nordic coopera- There is no common approach to dealing with congestion in tion excluding times of dis- the main grid turbances. This is because Sthe operational area is less political and • The philosophy of planning for and dealing with focuses on the need for control as an congestion is not consistent essential part of operating the Nordic • A common merit order for managing re-dispatch on a system. However, at times of concern for Nordic basis is missing system security, there is less collabora- • There is limited transparency towards the market around tion and a perception that the TSOs will how congestion is dealt with in the short and long run act conservatively to protect their own national consumers. Congestion management different countertrade approaches were assessed during an impact assessment. does not have the same level of flexible Congestion management covers the Nordic TSOs also held a workshop on resources leading to a focus on develop- following circumstances: the possibility of extending the special ing demand side response. Norway has • a situation where capacity made regulation to include other Nordic bids many internal grid constraints and must available to the market between which fed into the impact assessment. deal with congestions despite having zones cannot be physically realised; SvK and Statnett did not agree that it flexible reservoir hydro assets leading • a situation in which limited intrazonal was possible to extend the market area to low re-dispatch costs to deal with capacity (essentially assumed to be for special regulation to include other internal congestions. The Swedish grid unlimited in spot markets) cannot Nordic market areas. The reasoning was has systematic constraints in the West accommodate the scheduled pat- that additional imbalances from Germany Coast Corridor which is often cited as a terns of generation and demand; and would pose operational challenges to reason why interconnector capacity is • how the TSOs deal with grid con- manage frequency quality and security of restricted3. As a whole the Nordics have straints due to disturbances or forced supply due to internal constraints in both adopted an active balancing philosophy outages. the Norwegian (generally) and Swedish that is structured around the need to system (West Coast Cut)1. deal with internal congestions4. In the Nordic market the TSOs use Due to the physical difference in grid various measures to relieve internal bot- structure between areas in the Nordic tlenecks within price zones. Congestions grid, it is clear that not all TSOs have also occur between price zones and are the same problems with congestion managed using countertrade. management, nor the same tools to The approach for countertrade deal with the problem2. For example, in used by Energinet on the German Finland and Denmark the grid is strong border is to use special regulation resulting in fewer congestions than (as described in the case study). Six e.g. Norway or Sweden but the system
1 Section 4.3 of impact assessment: https://energinet.dk/-/media/Energinet/Presse-JNR/DK-Nyheder-dokumenter-2017/DK1-DE-Countertrade-models- Collected-Impact-Assessment.PDF 2 https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/message-center-container/newsroom/tso-news/2016/q4/ no.-332016---updated-routine-for-congestion-management-for-the-west-coast-corridor-in-sweden/ 3 https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2018/transmission-capacity-available-to-the-market-q1_2018.pdf 4 https://www.svk.se/contentassets/bc60c82ceaec44c0b9ffbf3ee2126adf/nordic-balancing-philosophy-160616-final_external.pdf 5 https://nordic-rsc.net/ 6 ENTSO-E. Available at: https://www.eles.si/Portals/0/News/ENTSO-E_PowerFacts_2019.pdf 7 http://forsyningstilsynet.dk/fileadmin/Filer/0_-_Nyt_site/EL/Sekretariatsafgoerelser/2018/OEvrige_afgoerelser/CCM_Norden/Bilag_6_-_DUR_EV_Ei_ CCR_agreement_on_future_RfA_10_July_2018.pdf
20 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Contingency management The protocols regarding capacity calculations for The following comments were made contingency management appear unclear to market during the interviews related to contin- participants and to some degree, to neighbouring TSOs gency management: • During the interviews it was noted • It is not clear under which circumstances cross-border that TSOs work very closely in sup- capacity will be reduced and by how much (both day to porting one another at times when day operations and in times of scarcity) there is not a crisis: ‘the control • RSC rules suggest that capacity calculations should be rooms would give their little fingers done by the RSC but there are specific complexities in for each other’. the Norwegian grid that make this task necessary to • Cooperation and transparency perform in Norway according to NVE and Statnett between neighbouring system opera- tors during critical system situations was seen as important as it sets the conditions on how TSOs can rely capacity calculations with probabilistic • supporting the consistency assess- on the availability of cross-border modelling for security of supply analysis. ment of transmission system oper- capacity in times of scarcity and as The Nordic RSC is the joint office for the ators' defence plans and restoration a result capacity allocated to the Nordic TSOs5. Nordic RSC supports its plans market or national measures such as owners, the national TSOs, in maintain- • carrying out regional week ahead to strategic reserve. ing the operational security of the power at least day-ahead system adequacy • TSO control rooms in the Nordics systems in the Nordic region. The core forecasts and preparation of risk cooperate very well in times of nor- tasks and responsibilities of RSC are reducing actions mal system operation. In times of a defined in the Commission Regulation • carrying out regional outage planning critical system situation it was men- (EU) 2017/1485 on establishing a guide- coordination tioned that this is one area where line on electricity transmission system • regional sizing of reserve capacity national interests are present and operation (System Operation Guideline). • facilitating the regional procurement where European regulations pushes The tasks of the RSC include: coordi- of balancing capacity for a more regional approach. nated capacity calculation, coordinated security calculation, outage planning In approving the Nordic TSO proposal An operational example given was coordination and short and medium for capacity calculation methodology the situation in which a cross-border term adequacy. While the RSC cannot (CCM), the regulators (CCR Nordic) capacity would be curtailed to avoid take actions to control the grid it can use noted that the proposal did not provide a brownout within a TSO national the results of the calculations to make sufficient clarity on the roles in the perimeter. There are few public regula- recommendations on how the TSOs act capacity calculation, especially around tions written about the practice in this to optimise results for the region. dynamic stability calculation. The reg- situation. Some of the interviewees The clean energy package amends the ulators asked for the Nordic TSOs to said that political alignment on this system operation guideline and adds work towards enabling the coordinated topic (a set of solidarity principles that additional service responsibilities to capacity calculator to handle dynamic covers the region) would be a helpful RSCs, who should become Regional stability calculations at a regional level7. step. Other interviewees saw that the Coordination Centres (RCCs) at the During the interviews it was reported security of supply is ultimately always latest by 1.7.20226. The role of RCCs is that NVE did not agree with the deci- a national topic although the solutions also defined in Regulation (EU) 2019/943 sion, proposing that Statnett should do can be pan-Nordic or European wide. on the internal market for electricity. The the calculations and provide the inputs In Denmark, a recent amendment to tasks and responsibilities of the RCC to the RSC. The reasoning was based on the Electricity Act placed more respon- consist of the following: the immaturity and cost of the dynamic sibility for security of supply with the • carrying out the coordinated capacity grid model compared to the existing Ministry relative to the TSO. calculation and security analysis expertise at the TSO. EU regulation forsees a move • creating common grid models towards a regional approach for
21 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Table 5 – Reserve products offered by the TSOs Statnett Energinet SvK Fingrid FCR-N - bid size Usually min Max 3MW for Min 0.1MW Min 0.1MW 1MW aggregated portfolios - activation Automatically DK2: 100% 150s Automatically Automatically at 49.9–50.1Hz. at 49.9–50.1Hz. at 49.9–50.1Hz. For loads 50% 63% 60s and 100% 3min 5s and 100% 30s 100 % 3min
FCR-D - bid size Usually min Max 3MW for Min 0.1MW Min 1MW 1MW aggregated portfolios - activation Automatically DK2: 50% 5s and Automatically Power plants: when frequency 100% 30s when frequency If below 49.5Hz below 49.9Hz. below 49.9Hz. 50% 5s and For loads, 50% 50 % 5s and 100% 30s 5s and 100% 30s 100% 30s
aFRR - bid size Min 5MW Max 10MW for Min 5MW Min 5MW aggregated portfolios - activation 100% 2min DK1: 100% 15min Automatically Automatically at 49.9–50.1Hz. at 49.9–50.1Hz. 63% 60s and 100% 3min 100 % 3min
mFRR - bid size - Max 10MW for Min 10MW (5 Min 5MW aggregated MW in SE4) portfolios - activation - 100% 15min 100% 15min 100% 15min
Strategic reserves None. 647MW Currently none. 752MW 729MW RKOM and an Considering agreement a temporary of a capacity one to Eastern of 215MW Denmark in critical situations.
TSO’s own production capacity 180MW gas - 690MW gas 953MW turbines to turbines decommissioned
Source: Statnett, Energinet, SvK, Fingrid
1 Nordic Market Design Forum – Feasibility study. Final report September 2017. https://www.poyry.com/sites/default/files/media/related_material/ nordicmarketdesign_finalreport_v200.pdf 2 BRS for Nordic trading system: A market model for data exchange. November 21st, 2018. https://www.ediel.org/SiteAssets/Sider/ NEGCommonDocuments/Nordic%20Trading%20System%20BRS%201r6C%20-%2020181121.pdf
22 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Balancing model and tools Although a new Nordic balancing model is being developed, at present, balancing tools are not fully harmonised across Balancing was seen as one area where Nordic TSOs there are clear national, Nordic and Euro- pean views that confront each other. In general, progress with Nordic balancing was seen as a success story from an Table 6 – Reserve costs included in the Statnett Energinet SvK Fingrid operational perspective and the creation calculation of the unit transmission tariffs of common merit order lists. It was also Primary reserves C (est) C (est) C N seen that balancing was now largely Secondary reserves C (est) C (est) N N being driven by European platforms and projects for the exchange of balancing Tertiary reserves C (est) C (est) N C energy such as MARI and PICASSO were Cost of reserves, 2018 (MEUR) 26.31 107.9 2 150.53 56.74 seen as important drivers of the Nordic balancing. C = A given cost item is included in the calculation of the Unit Transmission Tariff National views emerged when dis- N = A given cost is not considered in the calculation of the Unit Transmission Tariff cussing allocation of the costs of balanc- C (est) = The cost item is not invoiced by the TSO and estimated values are provided for comparability purposes ing the system between countries. The 1) Primary reserve MEUR 11.9 (FCR-N, FCR-D), secondary reserve MEUR 3.3 (aFRR) and tertiary reserve starting point was that the Nordic TSOs MEUR 11.0. 2) are in different positions with regard to Energinet: primary, secondary and tertiary reserves. 3) SvK: primary reserve MEUR 130.1, secondary reserve MEUR 11.8 and tertiary reserve which included the availability and cost of balancing disturbance reserve MEUR 8.6. Strategic power reserve costs MEUR 6.8 (net income MEUR 0.5) are not resources within national perimeters. included in reserve costs. 4) Fingrid: Primary, secondary and tertiary reserves. Tertiary reserve costs include manual frequency Under the old model, this has led to the restoration reserve mFRR (balancing energy and balancing capacity) and fast disturbance reserves view that TSOs in Finland and Denmark (Fingrid's reserve power plants and leasing reserve power plants). Strategic reserve costs (i.e. peak load are benefiting from cheap balancing capacity) MEUR 13.7 (net income MEUR 0.3) are not included in reserve costs. resources in Norway and Sweden. This led Source: ENTSO-E Overview of Transmission Tariffs in Europe: Synthesis 2019 (June 2019); Statnett, Statnett to raise concerns about free-rid- Energinet, SvK, Fingrid ing. In addition, it was mentioned that as Statnett and SvK take responsibility of system frequency control they have Another key issue would be that under services relating to, among other things, a greater exposure of the challenges in the new balancing model (MACE), each the remuneration principles (pay-as-bid v. balancing the Nordic system and hence TSO would be responsible for balancing pay-as-clear/ marginal pricing), contract competence for balancing the system. supplies in its own country and also pro- types (long-term contracts v. daily/hourly Some issues around governance could vides a way for allocating reserve costs market), and operational schedules. be seen during the discussions between between TSOs. It was mentioned that the E.g., in Sweden and Denmark the price Nordic TSOs on the common balancing IT systems to support the new balancing setting in FCR markets follow pay-as-bid project where Statnett and SvK proposed model are more complex than expected principle, while Norway is using marginal a governance model with an unequal and this is resulting in delays in the imple- pricing1, 2. In Finland, marginal pricing is distribution of voting rights between the mentation as well as being a significant used in hourly market. In the yearly mar- Nordic TSOs. The model was rejected task for the TSOs from a capability and ket the price is constant during the entire by Fingrid on the basis of Finnish and task perspective. Another important calendar year and all market participants European legislation and subsequently element was the introduction of the TSO- receive the same compensation for main- the proposal was modified with Nordic DSO interface for balancing using more taining reserve capacity based on the TSOs as equal partners in the project. distributed resources. yearly auction. Different technical require- The new balancing model (MACE) and The harmonisation of balancing plat- ments and market rules together consti- Nordic balancing concept was seen as an forms and tools is taking place both at the tute an impediment to demand response important step forward to manage the Nordic and European level. As it can be to participate in the reserve markets. Nordic system in the future. One impact seen in the Table 5, the technical require- There are also differences in the princi- that was noted was that the process of ments of balancing tools are not fully ples how the TSOs cover the reserve costs discussion around the new balancing harmonised yet. More importantly, there as can be seen in the Table 6. model led to a much better shared under- are major differences in the market rules standing of the challenges of each TSO. and procurement procedures for ancillary
23 Fortum Energy Review 2019
5 Transparency
ll the Nordic TSOs have statutory obligations to Information about the state of the market is not revealed in a develop and facilitate systematic way across the TSOs electricity market, and they are committed to • Common Nordic conditions about transparency in critical Athis task. Transparency of the electricity situations of supply and demand are lacking market information is a key element in • Capacity calculation at borders is unclear, especially in improving the functioning of the elec- times of scarcity tricity market. ENTSO-E has introduced a European-wide transparency platform to facilitate access to information by all market participants and stakeholders in promoting the transparency goals of the Nordic TSOs relates to the availability of electricity generation and consumption EU’s internal energy market1. ENTSO-E real-time market information. For exam- decisions as well as long-term invest- transparency platform is based on the ple, since 2016 Fingrid has been publish- ments of the market players. regulation (EU) 543/2013 on submission ing balancing power price information It was clear that not all TSOs see the and publication of data in electricity (the last balancing price) in times of need to publish balancing prices in times market. system scarcity where Finland is decou- of scarcity. The reasons given include Transparency in situations where pled into a separate region, subject to other priorities (such as ongoing IT capacity on interconnectors is changing volume limits on the remaining number of projects) or then that the publication of leaves room for improvement, as does up and down regulation bids. In summer balancing prices raises the potential for the overall calculation of transmission 2019 the pilot was extended and the limit self-balancing actions which can cause capacity. This can be due to planned on remaining MW bids was removed complications for system operation in events (maintenance) or unplanned meaning that the last activated balancing weaker grid areas. events e.g. congestion management. power bid will be published in Finland Two drivers that were taken as a pos- It can also be due to TSOs contingency when the Finnish area is decoupled3. itive sign for transparency development planning. For example, congestion in Other examples include 6 months pilot in the future were the development of the West Coast Corridor in Sweden is that enables intraday gate closure time of the RSC and also the Nordic balancing the main reason for limited availability 0 minutes in Finland4 and the publication model via the new IT vehicle for develop- in interconnectors between Sweden of names of reserve suppliers by reserve ing the balancing model, Fifty IT and also and Denmark (SE4-DK2), Sweden and products. In the past, the Nordic TSOs the common discussions on the balanc- Norway (SE3-NO1), and Sweden and have had a common strategic initiative ing model that the TSOs would have. The Germany (SE4-DE) – this is partly to “set data free” but it didn’t progress. lack of transparency is not always due to because congestion in this area cannot Now each TSO has developed own open TSOs protecting their own system and be solved using countertrade2. data accesses based on national starting data but simply a lack of data. The approach to transparency and points and needs. trust in the market in critical market This is because Fingrid views that situations (e.g. scarcity) varies across the price generated in the electricity the TSOs. One main difference between market effectively guides the short-term
1 https://transparency.entsoe.eu/dashboard/show 2 https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2019/swedish-interconnectors-monitoring-report-no15.pdf 3 https://www.fingrid.fi/en/pages/news/news/2019/fingrid-increases-real-time-market-information-about-balancing-power/ 4 https://www.fingrid.fi/globalassets/dokumentit/fi/sahkomarkkinat/reservit/reserve_suppliers.pdf
24 Fortum Energy Review 2019
25 Fortum Energy Review 2019
6 Politics and governance
he interviews highlighted clear differences of approach on issues with a The legislative framework for regulating TSO obligations strong national dimension: and tasks is similar in many but not all areas across Nordic e.g. topics such as security countries and there is room for national perspectives and Tof supply and grid investments not interpretations always being economically driven. Some interviewees highlighted differences in • The roles of TSO, NRA and ministry are broadly the same, the political oversight and governance of but the responsibilities, decision making power and the TSOs as key drivers for the national political influence may differ approaches. As an example, each of • Governance structures give room for national the countries has recently published its perspectives and decision-making processes to emerge own national energy vision. However, it as a means of control was also frequently stated that common Nordic vision and solutions are increas- ingly important to support the energy transition.
Regulation and grid and system operation as well as tariffs, non-discriminatory behaviour, governance model electricity market development. TSOs’ customer information, metering, settle- responsibilities are expanding also to ment and billing, system responsibility, As Nordic Member States of the EU, the the retail market development through quality of supply and the organised legislative framework for TSO respon- operation of centralised information physical power exchange (Nord Pool). sibilities and tasks is broadly similar in exchange systems (‘Data Hubs”). On the Some of these responsibilities are Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Norway other hand, there are also many differ- directly under the Ministry in other is not an EU member but it has adopted ences in TSO’s responsibilities and oper- Nordic countries. the EU’s Third Energy Package and ations. For example, SvK is responsible There are also major differences therefore complies with the terms set for the supervisory guidance for the in the TSOs’ governance structures. in it. While EU/EC regulations have a local authorities in dam security issues. Statnett is a state enterprise fully owned direct application in the EU, in Norway, Statnett owns a transportation company by the OED. The Ministry has a double they must be enforced through the EEA responsible for transport of heavy and role with Statnett; that of an owner and (European Economic Area) process valuable components to the Norwegian a regulator through NVE. NVE was seen and the Norwegian law. Under the EEA energy and power industry. Energinet to be growing more independent from treaty, Norway has also the right to operates also as a gas TSO for Denmark. the Ministry albeit with some notes refuse the adoption of EU rules. National regulatory institutions gov- about acceptance of EU requirements. The primary legislation governing erning TSO operations are comparable Energinet is a public company TSO’s operation is inherently general at a general level in Nordic countries: belonging under the Danish Ministry of in nature giving room for national per- the Ministry or government/parliament Climate, Energy and Utilities, and is fully spectives to emerge as a means of issues and approves the laws and the owned by the Government of Denmark. control. Issues around security of supply, NRA is responsible for regulatory meth- Energinet recently had roles separated national welfare and energy policy are ods and tariff setting principles, and into system operator and transmission the most nationally driven topics and supervises that the TSO operations operator. The transmission operator has highly political issues. Secondary legisla- comply with the law. However, some a relatively simple price control regu- tion, on the other hand, is typically more differences exist in NRAs’ rights to issue lation while the system operator has detailed, giving further room for national secondary legislation. E.g. NVE has the socio-economic objectives. The system differences. authority to issue regulations on eco- operator is responsible for forward plan- All the Nordic TSOs have statutory nomic and technical reporting, network ning and orders services from the trans- responsibility for the transmission revenues, market access and network mission operator when investments are
26 Fortum Energy Review 2019
needed. In this way the system operator the same time some commented that • Development of transparent grid decides on the ‘market v grid’. This there was some underwhelming support planning process taking into account approach was developed to overcome for the Nordic Forum and for the RSC. fair distribution of costs when Nor- suspected bias towards capex solutions The Energy Regulators Regional dic projects in the region are highly and clarify roles and responsibilities. Forum (ERRF) is cooperation and beneficial from a Nordic perspective SvK is a part of the state directly, not coordination platform established by (“Nordic welfare”), but less beneficial just owned by the state. Every year, SvK NordREG in 2017 to facilitate common from a national perspective; receives regulation letters from the gov- and consistent national decisions to be • Implementation of Nordic Balancing ernment setting out tasks set out by the made by each Nordic energy regulator, model and other market reforms, and government (rather than the Minister). according to network codes and binding the upgrading of the market rules and The regulatory letter also includes eco- guidelines. procedures to enable that all flexible nomic targets, including return, maxi- The Nordic Electricity Market Forum assets can actively contribute to mum leverage and the share of return is a new cooperation platform initiated function of the Nordic power system; that SvK provides to Government. by Nordic Council of Ministers for closer • Increased transparency on (close Fingrid is a public limited liability dialogue between the different types to) real-time system operation and company in which the Finnish state has of stakeholders within the Nordic elec- reporting on major incidents to the a controlling stake. As a public limited tricity market . The first forum was held markets, and clear and efficient price liability company Fingrid’s operations in November 2018 in which a new vision signals guiding grid investments and are regulated also by the Limited for the Nordic electricity market was ini- internalising the risk of inadequacy; Liability Companies Act (624/2006) and tiated together with a roadmap to 2030. • Strengthening of the one common other applicable legislation, as well as The vision was discussed and endorsed Nordic voice in interacting and influ- the articles of association. by the Nordic Energy Ministers at the encing in the EU; and During the interviews it was com- Nordic Energy Ministerial meeting • Coordinated and transparent Nordic mented that under a common high level in June 2019. At the forum, a list of processes to implement EU/EC regu- structure the differences in the govern- long-term-objectives and medium- and lation and rules. ance model between TSOs can have an short-term targets in five key areas were effect on the way TSOs act and make identified for achieving the common In addition to the cooperation platforms decisions. These differences relate to vision. In addition, many concrete imme- above, Nordic TSOs are cooperating the political influence, way of developing diate (2019-2020) and further (2021-) with each other at many levels, e.g. the common national view, decision making action points were depicted, the most Nordic RSC is the joint office for the Nor- power, and the involvement of the minis- important of which relate to the follow- dic TSOs established 2017 (see 4.2). tries and NRAs in TSOs’ operating activi- ing areas: ties, i.e. how independent TSOs are. Nordic cooperation and political cohesion There are a number of platforms and processes to support The Electricity Market Group (EMG) and promote Nordic cooperation and harmonisation but is a working group under the Nordic there are different views on their effectiveness and the Council of Ministers, where Nordic underlying development needs Energy Research acts as a secretariat. The group commissions analyses and • Some are pleased with the current state of cooperation; provides advice to the Energy Ministers others see that Nordic cooperation cannot live on of the Nordic countries and has e.g. historical merits acted as coordinators of the harmoni- • Nordic TSOs are reacting to EU requirements and there sation process in the Nordic electricity is an emphasis on common interpretation of European market on behalf of the Nordic Council requirements of Ministers. • There are different views on the current level of political There are also a number of discussion commitment to Nordic cooperation groups that have been set up to raise • There is a general lack of political cohesion across the topics and discuss challenges on the Nordic market regarding energy policy Nordic level; e.g. directors of regulators, TSOs and Ministries meet every year. At
27 Fortum Energy Review 2019
From the interviews, there was a seat of European market design. The EU on Nordic cooperation and the national general view that Nordic cooperation and the countries in Central Western decisions on grid investments which is is better than in many other parts of Europe are increasingly seen as the coupled to the relationship between the Europe and in recent years Nordic driver – for example the Clean Energy TSO, regulator and government. cooperation has been good in market Package and the Network Codes where There are different levels of political development and is improving in the it was commented by interviewees commitment to change the existing area of grid investment. Many sig- that Nordics are implementers and the market due to the different structures nificant steps toward improving the focus is on interpretation not original of the market and future challenges to cooperation and solving the common design. On a related note, during some decarbonise. This can lead to conflicting challenges have been achieved since of the interviews it was also stated priorities when considering invest- a Nordic Roundtable Conversation in that some of the European regulations ments and system development for the December 20151 and several essential are more suited for the core of Europe future Nordic market. In addition, there solutions and initiatives are underway rather than the challenges faced in the is a clear difference in perspective on such as Nordic Balancing Model, Nordic Nordic region. Cooperation in the area the integration of the Baltic markets Grid Development Plan 2019 and Nordic of network investment and development between the four countries. The main Regional Security Coordination2. was less than hoped for by some of the reason for this was seen to be the On the other hand, it was also seen interviewees. Reasons for this included impact on the current power balance that the traditional Nordic position as national positions with the observation between the TSOs when contentious forerunners in Europe has changed – that there could be a misalignment issues need to be decided on; adding the Nordics are no longer in the driving between statements of Nordic ministers more TSOs to the decision-making
1 http://www.pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/pfb_will_nordel_rise_again_2015_12_12.pdf 2 See e.g. https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2018/the-way-forward---solutions-for-a-changing-nordic-power-system_with-appendices.pdf, and http://nordicbalancingmodel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Challenges-and-Solutions-in-the-Nordic-Grid-Stakeholder-Workshop.pdf
28 Fortum Energy Review 2019
process would mean a majority voting system, meaning that each TSO would lose its veto. Examples included the rule Strong political will and commitment is seen as a more on making 70% of capacity available to plausible way for pushing Nordic cooperation rather than the market, another was 15min imbal- common Nordic regulation ance settlement period. Therefore some saw the value of Nordic cooperation as • Harmonisation of Nordic regulation is challenging. being able to form a common negotiat- Differences in national legislation exist as well as in ing front with Brussels. implementation of EU regulation. Moreover, there is often some freedom to interpret the national legislation Legislative to favour or disfavour Nordic interest or initiatives. • Future cooperation could be built around a common framework vision based on mutual benefit Nordic cooperation and harmonisation has been founded on the principles of voluntary and mutual benefit. The Louisiana Declaration in 1995 took the first step towards the Nordic market. In energy visions and policies which impact Harmonisation of Nordic regulation 2004 the Akureyri Declaration called for on the Nordic cooperation. E.g., in the was seen by some to take place through enhanced cooperation between Nordic roadmap for reaching the Nordic elec- EU regulation. A complicating factor TSOs. By the Copenhagen Declaration tricity market vision it is stated that the was related to the interpretation of EU in 2010, the prime ministers in the Nor- roadmap does not necessarily reflect the legislation by different regulators and dic countries made a declaration to priorities of each national government. the multi-layered nature means direc- strengthen Nordic cooperation in the There is no such a thing as common tives can be interpreted in a way that field of electricity and grid investment Nordic regulation. Neither there are any enables national interests to be secured. planning3. institutions to enact pan-Nordic regu- There was a view that the Nordic way is As already stated before, cooperative lation. In practice, the harmonisation of more around interpretation whereas the actions taken to date have provided the Nordic regulation takes gradually Brussels approach was more prescrip- benefits for each country. In the future, place through implementing EU legis- tive (i.e. to enforce the wording of what however, the benefits (and costs) of fur- lation. EU legislation is common to all was agreed). NordREG was seen as quite ther harmonisation may not be shared TSOs but the degree of implementation weak in implementing cross-border as equally. Most of the low-hanging fruit may differ to some extent, except for EU regulations. In this situation is was also are already captured. At the same time regulation that becomes immediately noted that ACER can be used to play EU is taking a lead in electricity market enforceable as law in all member states the role of enforcer when there is disa- development and as noted in the Ollila immediately5. ERRF is an example of a greement between national regulators report4, “developments in European Nordic cooperation platform to facilitate meaning that the European view (that regulation serve as the umbrella under common and consistent interpretations happened to be in line with national which the Nordic electricity market is of EU legislation as emphasised in the views) would prevail. It was also men- structured”. In a way this also means roadmap for reaching the Nordic elec- tioned that as Norway is not a member that decisions affecting the Nordic TSOs tricity market vision. of the EU then EU legislation needs to be are taken elsewhere and not always in During the interviews it was com- written into Norwegian law which some- the Nordic mutual interest. mented that there are differences in times takes more time than expected. The national regulations give room Nordic regulation and regulatory views: for national perspectives and interpreta- some are more competition oriented, tions. There are also differences across others are more from the energy regula- the Nordic countries how the Nordic tion perspective. There was also a view cooperation has been incorporated that harmonised Nordic regulation was into the national legislation. National not needed or even possible due to the interests are visible also in the national different national perspectives.
3 Statsministermøde i Nordisk Ministerråd (NMR) om elmarkedet den 2. november 2010. 4 https://www.nordicenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Nordic-Energy-Co-operation-Strong-today-stronger-tomorrow.pdf 5 Position of Norway, see 6.1.
29 Fortum Energy Review 2019
Summary
The Nordic countries formed the world’s Physical and political context there are a number of platforms and first integrated cross-border electricity Nordic TSOs have different histori- processes to support and promote Nordic market in 1996, founded on the sharing cal and operational perspectives which cooperation and harmonisation but there of mutual benefits. Its design formed influence their behaviour and approach. are different views on their effectiveness the blueprint for the European Target and the underlying development needs; Model, which is the basis for electricity Transmission grid investment strong political will and commitment is trading and transmission access across Grid investments are subject to seen as a more plausible way for pushing the entire EU. The Nordic energy vision national interests and prioritisation; Nordic cooperation rather than common was refreshed in 2010 with a series of for future shared investments, the Nordic regulation (which is considered political statements. However, in recent asymmetric distribution of costs and unachievable), but there is doubt whether years, Nordic collaborative activities benefits between countries is a new nor- it is enough to drive deep collaboration. have visibly slowed, and European elec- mal and complicates discussions: there tricity market design has been led by are few simple ‘win-win’ cases; Despite many challenges and further other countries with different drivers. in evaluating shared investments, harmonisation needs, Nordic coopera- The Nordic TSOs – previously forerun- a common Nordic cost-benefit meth- tion is better than in many other parts ners in cross-border market collabora- odology is used but freedom over data of Europe and is improving in many tion – have been dealing with very dif- inputs for risk analysis permits national areas. Many significant steps toward ferent priorities from each other, and at interests to take precedence over com- improving cooperation and solving the times their discussions have spilled into mon benefits. common challenges have been achieved public argument. including initiatives such as Nordic Bal- To meet the challenges of the energy Congestion and contingency ancing Model, Nordic Grid Development transition towards a zero-carbon econ- management Plan 2019 and Nordic Regional Security omy, even deeper partnership will be there are national differences in Coordination. On the other hand, the needed; to resolve topics with less approach to the existence and manage- traditional Nordic position as forerun- straightforward win-win outcomes than ment of congestion in the main trans- ners in Europe has been challenged – previous joint initiatives. If the Nordic mission grid; the Nordics are no longer in the driving energy transition is to be a success, col- the protocols regarding network seat of European market design. laboration between TSOs in all aspects capacity calculations for contingency Nordic cooperation and harmonisa- of system planning and operation must management appear unclear to market tion continue to have a significant role be at the heart of it. participants and (to some degree), to in the electricity market development Nordic TSOs have common denom- neighbouring TSOs; regionally and European-wide. Common inators but they also differ from each although a new Nordic balancing Nordic solutions are essential to sup- other in many respects such as physical model is being developed; at present, porting the energy transition. Nordic and political context, energy policy, balancing tools are not fully harmonised cooperation is also becoming increas- legislation, and their ownership and across Nordic TSOs. ingly necessary as being able to form a governance structure. The purpose of common negotiating front with Brussels. the study is to understand obligations Transparency Nordic cooperation and harmonisa- and the incentives of the Nordic TSOs, information about the state of the tion has been founded on the principles and how and in what circumstances their market is not revealed in a systematic of voluntary and mutual benefit. New observed behaviour supports Nordic way across the TSOs. tools and a lot of political commitment regional interests or gives precedence are needed in an environment of uneven to national requirements. Our aim is to Politics and governance and uncertain benefits and costs, as support an open and constructive debate the legislative framework for regulat- each further commitment considered in around the Nordic TSOs and how the ing TSO obligations and tasks is similar isolation has the potential to benefit one differences are reflected in the Nordic in many but not all areas across Nordic country at the expense of another. It is cooperation and harmonisation. countries and there is room for national only with a view of the wider perspective The key findings of the study can be perspectives and interpretations; that the mutually beneficial actions can summarised in the following points: be taken towards a future energy alliance.
30 Fortum Energy Review 2019
ANNEX A Interviewees
Norway Statnett • Gunnar G. Løvås, Executive Vice President Market and System Operation NVE • Ove Flataker, Director – Energy Market Regulation Department • Vivi Mathiesen , Head of Section – Wholesale market
Denmark Energinet • Søren Dupont Kristensen, CEO Energinet Elsystemansvar Energistyrelsen • Markus Hüber, Special Advisor • Lars Nielsen, Head of Division • Sharissa Funk, Advisor Forsyningstilsynet • Carsten Smids, Director
Sweden Svenska Kraftnät • Niclas Damsgaard, Chief strategist, System Operator Division Regeringskansliet • Magnus Blümer, Enhetschef på Regeringskansliet, Infrastrukturdepartementet Energimarknadsinspektionen • Anne Vadasz Nilsson, Director General
Finland Fingrid Oyj • Jukka Ruusunen, President & CEO Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment • Riku Huttunen, Director General Energy Authority • Simo Nurmi, Director General • Jarno Lamponen, Chief Specialist, Markets, Market Development
Nordic RSC • Jens Møller Birkebæk, Daily Manager
31